Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Fri, Nov 28 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at DAL

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalFri, Nov 28
UTAUtah Hockey Club3DALDallas Stars4
The verdict · earned

The Stars earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

UTA 3 · DAL 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:10 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Dallas's 64% expected-goals share (5.75–3.30) tells a story far more lopsided than the 4-3 final. The Stars generated far more dangerous chances—12 high-danger looks to Utah's 3—and each shot carried greater weight: 0.120 xG per shot versus Utah's 0.069. The game featured 15 high-danger chances combined.

On the rush, Dallas converted 3 of 22 chances while Utah converted 3 of 31. Dallas crashed the net effectively, creating 5 rebound opportunities and converting 1. Goaltending made the difference. V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 1.75 goals above expected, while Dallas underperformed their 5.75 expected goals by the same margin. The Stars' power play was dominant: 2 goals on 9 shots (1.10 xG) decided the game.

Three Stars:

  • #4 M. Heiskanen (DAL) — 2A in 27:05
  • #6 J. Marino (UTA) — 2A in 20:50
  • #96 M. Rantanen (DAL) — 2A in 19:14
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Nov 28
UTA
3
DAL
4

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 3.3 – 5.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.30
DAL
5.75
36% of the chances64%

The board read UTA 3, DAL 4. The chances read UTA 3.3, DAL 5.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−1.8
goals above expected
DAL5.75 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.30 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:57UTAL. Cooley1–0
  2. P1 12:17UTAK. Rooney2–0
  3. P1 17:38DALR. HintzPP2–1
  4. P2 08:16DALJ. Benn2–2
  5. P2 09:18DALJ. Robertson2–3
  6. P2 16:14UTAJ. McBain3–3
  7. P2 18:33DALW. JohnstonPP3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
39 shots
3
Final
76 shots
DAL
37 shots
4
UTA attackDAL attack
UTA DAL Goal
39
shots · 3 in
37
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTADAL
2 / 3
1.01 xG
High danger
2 / 12
3.82 xG
1 / 17
1.71 xG
Medium
2 / 11
1.50 xG
0 / 28
0.58 xG
Low
0 / 25
0.43 xG

The Stars buried 2 of 12 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
V. Vanecek
+1.8
UTA · 24/28
B
J. Oettinger
+0.3
DAL · 27/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 08 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–11
  1. 00:57UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, K. Yamamoto)1–0
  2. 12:17UTAK. Rooney(J. Marino, M. Carcone)2–0
  3. 17:38DALR. Hintzpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)2–1
2ndshots 13–12
  1. 08:16DALJ. Benn(A. Petrovic)2–2
  2. 09:18DALJ. Robertson(K. Capobianco, J. Hryckowian)2–3
  3. 16:14UTAJ. McBain(L. Crouse, J. Marino)3–3
  4. 18:33DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)3–4
3rdshots 9–5no goals

    score reads UTA–DAL

    Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
    Process vs result

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.75
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.021
    DAL puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.30Expected goals5.75
    DAL 64% of the chance quality
    30Shots on goal28
    3High-danger chances12
    48All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: UTA 50% · DAL 50%
    Faceoffs · DAL won47%off41%neu64%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA2 / 3 · 1.01 xG
    DAL2 / 12 · 3.82 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA1 / 17 · 1.71 xG
    DAL2 / 11 · 1.50 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 28 · 0.58 xG
    DAL0 / 25 · 0.43 xG

    DAL went 2-for-12 from high danger on 3.82 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
    The luck layer

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    3 G · 3.30 xG · -0.3
    DAL
    4 G · 5.75 xG · -1.8
    01234567

    UTA finished -0.3 against expected, DAL -1.8.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    SNAP2/20
    WRIST0/8
    BACKHAND1/3
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/9
    DAL
    SNAP2/21
    WRIST0/4
    BACKHAND1/6
    SLAP0/2
    TIP IN1/3
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/11
    UTA
    DAL
    Off the rush
    3 G on 31
    2.70 xG
    3 G on 22
    2.72 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.15 xG
    1 G on 5
    1.13 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-20, DAL 2-for-21. UTA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

    Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
    New to these numbers?

    Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

    The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

    xG
    Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
    HD
    High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
    Corsi
    Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
    Adj.
    Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
    GSAx
    Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
    PDO
    Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
    Shot by shot

    In the net

    Graded on goals saved above expected
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 24/28 · .857
    +1.8
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/123.8+1.8
    Medium2/111.5-0.5
    Low0/250.4+0.4

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    J. Oettinger
    DAL · 27/30 · .900
    +0.3
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/31.0-1.0
    Medium1/171.7+0.7
    Low0/280.6+0.6

    A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    39 shots
    3
    Final
    76 shots
    DAL
    37 shots
    4
    UTA attackDAL attack
    UTA DAL Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, DAL right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

    Ranked from the box score

    Three stars

    Points first
    Three stars · computed, not voted
    M. Heiskanen
    #4 · D · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 27:05 on ice · -1
    J. Marino
    #6 · D · UTA
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:50 on ice · +3
    M. Rantanen
    #96 · R · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:14 on ice · -1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Fri, Nov 28
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 6:09 PMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

    The model has this at 50-50, and it isn't overshooting. Utah and Dallas post nearly identical expected-goal percentages — 52.0% and 51.0% — while the league's win probability sits dead even. This isn't a game where hidden value waits; this is a genuine toss-up.

    The teams arrive with drastically different momentum. Dallas has run 8-1-1 over its last ten, while Utah sits at -5 goal differential in the same span. The Stars belong on the short end if anyone does.

    Utah, though, drives the puck. They're at 53.0% Corsi while Dallas sits at 47.0%, meaning the Mammoth own territorial play and generate more volume. That should tighten any advantage Dallas might claim on record.

    Dallas has a regression watch. Their PDO stands at 1.024 — they're converting at an unsustainable clip. Utah's 1.003 is closer to neutral, a minor edge toward reality.

    The goaltending angle favors neither: C. DeSmith works on a back-to-back, as does K. Vejmelka. Either could start on fumes or see a backup chase.

    On talent, Dylan Guenther anchors Utah's attack. He's shot at 1.02 xG per 60, posted 28 goals to go with 15 assists, and generated three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate reflects downside variance — he'll regress toward league average. Daniil But, meanwhile, sits at just 2 goals on a 1.01 xG/60 rate; his 5.6% shooting is the opposite problem.

    Jason Robertson carries Dallas's load at 0.96 xG per 60, 25 goals, and 21 assists. Michael Bunting rounds out the support at 0.83 xG per 60.

    The defensive weak link for Utah is Maveric Lamoureux; for Dallas, Tyler Myers. Watch those names in transition.

    This is what parity looks like: nearly identical underlying metrics, form pulling the teams in opposite directions, and neither goaltender fully rested. The model is right to call it a flip.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    DAL 51%
    50%
    DAL
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    UTA50DAL

    DAL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.5 DAL; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

    Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
    Season rates · 5v5

    Tale of the tape

    NHL stats API · our xG
    UTA← edge
    edge →DAL
    52.0%51.0%
    53.0%47.0%
    2.642.36
    2.392.29
    2.262.07
    1.991.68
    1.0031.024

    UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.024) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    3-4-3
    -5 GD · 1d rest
    DAL
    8-1-1
    +20 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • C. DeSmith is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Stars are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
    • The Mammoth are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.765 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    DAL
    Expected in goal
    C. DeSmith
    back-to-back.929 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 GSAx this season
    Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

    Computed danger · scouting

    Players to watch

    NHL stats API · our xG
    UTA
    Dylan Guenther28G 15A
    1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh
    Daniil But2G 2A
    1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page